R v Thomas - [2014] VSC 677

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0012

IAN THOMAS

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 November 2014
DATE OF RULING:	21 November 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Thomas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 677

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Trial - Application for change of venue – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s. 192 - Accused charge with two counts of murder – Victims are the parents of the accused – Publicity – Effect of Publicity – Effect of family’s long-standing connection with the area – Whether jury unaffected by publicity could be selected – Whether fair trial can be had – - Application for change of venue not upheld based on publicity - Custody conditions for trial – Unsatisfactory – Whether conditions can be improved - Application adjourned for further investigation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T. Gyorffy SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. McMahon	Spicer Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application by the accused man Ian Thomas for a change of venue for his trial. The trial is scheduled to be held in Wangaratta in August 2015.

The accused is charged with two counts of murder, it being alleged by the prosecution that at Wangaratta on 22 April 2013, he murdered his parents William and Pauline Thomas.

The application for change of venue is made pursuant to s 192 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 which provides that:

If a court considers that—
(a) a fair trial in a criminal proceeding cannot otherwise be had; or
(b) for any other reason it is appropriate to do so—

the court may order that the trial be held at any other place that the court considers appropriate.

In this case, a committal proceeding was held in Wangaratta in May 2014. I am told by Mr McMahon, counsel for the accused, that the matter will proceed as a “fully contested” trial. Among other things I am also told that the confession the accused is alleged to have made about the killings will be contested. Beyond that, and despite the committal having been held 6 months ago, the more precise issues in the trial have apparently not yet been identified. The prosecution has not yet filed a summary of prosecution opening and therefore the accused has not been required to file any response.

Broadly, the application for change of venue has two bases.

First, it was contended on behalf of the accused that the effect of the widespread publicity concerning this matter in the Wangaratta district at the time these deaths occurred was such that it’s effect would prejudice a fair trial. That was argued to be the effect because it was put that there is widespread community knowledge that the accused “brutally” murdered his parents who were “widely known and loved” members of the community and then “confessed” to having committed the murders.

Second, it was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Thomas

Details

AGLC: R v Thomas [2014] VSC 677
Case: [2014] VSC 677
Decision Date: 21 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thomas was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The accused, Thomas, faced two charges of murder related to the deaths of his parents. The primary dispute in the case centred around the application for a change of venue due to the extensive media coverage of the case and the family's deep-rooted ties to the community. Thomas's legal team argued that the local publicity and the family's connection to the area would prevent the selection of an impartial jury, thereby impacting the fairness of the trial.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the intense publicity surrounding the case and the family's longstanding presence in the community would hinder the selection of an impartial jury. The court had to consider whether a fair trial could still be conducted in the existing venue or if a change of venue was necessary under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The court also examined whether the current custody conditions for Thomas were satisfactory and if they could be improved for the duration of the trial.

The court found that, despite the significant publicity and the family's connection to the area, it was still possible to select a jury that could remain impartial. The court held that the publicity had not irreparably tainted the community to the extent that a fair trial could not be conducted. Consequently, the application for a change of venue was dismissed. However, the court noted that the current custody conditions for Thomas were unsatisfactory and directed that efforts be made to improve these conditions for the duration of the trial. The application regarding the custody conditions was adjourned for further investigation to allow for any necessary adjustments to be made.

Orders